The Stories from Evolutionism. Many people still believe that the eye could have had a natural origin. This belief has been around well before science was able to determine if it was true or not. For over 150 years now some people have accepted the idea that a natural origin for the features in life is possible. But over the last 50 years a growing number of scientists have been abandoning this idea as not compatible with what we know
In the article “SPARK OF GENIUS” in the December 2012 issue of Smithsonian, evolutionists claim that fire influenced our biological evolution. “…fire’s most lasting impact was how our responses to it altered our brains, helping endow us with capabilities such as long term memory and problem solving.” They suggest that: Using fire as a light led to a “profound change in how our brains regulate time.” This is because it allowed us to stay awake longer. And, “…fire altered the
One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are -as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. Evolutionist will shy away from the topic of the origin of life when in mixed company and attempt to claim it’s a non issue. In spite of this denial it is part of most evolutionary storylines. Evolution was never accepted because scientific data demanded it. Its
“This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion.” W.R. Thompson “…inquiring minds, even when misled, could not help making some discoveries.” Isaac
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but it’s not a duck, it’s probably another case of convergent evolution Generally, the assumed transitions in the evolutionary story do not require a scientific explanation. Evolution is assumed to be responsible for every feature of every organism that ever existed. The key to defining an evolutionary ancestral relationship is usually similarity of structure. The differences are assumed to be the result of evolution. Quite often however things may
Darwinist’s answer to irreducible complexity There is a story that goes something like this, After a lecture on the cosmos, an old woman approached the lecturer and said, “I’m sorry but your wrong about the earth orbiting the sun and the sun being part of a galaxy, the earth is actually sitting on the back of a giant turtle” The lecturer then asked, “Well, what’s the turtle standing on” “Another turtle.” She said. “And what’s that turtle standing on” “It’s
“Time is in fact the hero of the plot… Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible becomes probable and the probable becomes virtually certain. One only has to wait: time itself performs the miracles.” –Former Evolutionist George Wald. The infinite improbability drive is a fictional space ship engine invented by fiction writer Douglas Adams. It enabled a ship to go to any point in the universe in only a few seconds. The ship would reach its destination
This is a list of some of the mistaken ideas that are used in evolutionary thinking. 1. Similarity is evidence for ancestral relationships. When used as evidence for evolution it becomes circular reasoning. Similarities can have two origins, design or ancestry. If the relationship is ancestral then similarities would be due to common ancestry, but if similarities are from a designer using the same or similar structures, then similarity is evidence of a common designer. Another problem is that
Darwinists and those who philosophically stand with them considered themselves to be the wisest and most intelligent beings in the entire universe. By now most of us have seen the Darwin fish, the Christian fish symbol modified by putting Darwin’s name in the place of Jesus, and adding legs. What does it say about evolution and creation, what does it say about Biblical accuracy and what does it really say about the people who designed it and display it?